Standing Committee B

[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Criminal Justice Bill

Ordered, 
That the Order of the Committee [17th December] be further amended, in paragraph (8), by leaving out '5.15 pm on Thursday 27th February' and inserting '6.50 pm on Tuesday 4th March'. 
 That the Order of the House of 4th December 2002 (Criminal Justice Bill (Programme)) be further varied as follows: 
 Consideration and Third Reading 
 (1) Paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) of the Order (Consideration and Third Reading) shall be omitted. 
 (2) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second of those days.—[Hilary Benn.]

New Clause 8 - Early release of fine defaulters

'(1) This section applies in relation to a person committed to prison— 
 (a) in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction, or 
 (b) for contempt of court or any kindred offence. 
 (2) As soon as a person to whom this section applies has served one half of the term for which he was committed, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to release him unconditionally. 
 (3) Where a person to whom this section applies is also serving one or more sentences of imprisonment, nothing in this section requires the Secretary of State to release him until he is also required to release him in respect of that sentence or each of those sentences. 
 (4) The Secretary of State may at any time release unconditionally a person to whom this section applies if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the person's release on compassionate grounds.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause re-enacts, with appropriate modifications, section 45 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as amended, which sets out the release provisions for offenders committed to custody in default of payment of a fine or for contempt of court. The new clause provides for the unconditional release at the halfway point and will cover those serving terms of both less than and more than 12 months. It preserves the effect of part of the old provision, which provided for the unconditional release at the halfway point of a person committed for a term of less than 12 months or at the two-thirds point in the case of a person committed for a term of more than 12 months. However, under the new framework, offenders sentenced to a ''normal'' term of imprisonment of more than 12 months will be released automatically at the halfway point, so it seemed sensible to extend the provision to fine defaulters and contemnors. 
 The new clause also provides a power to release such offenders unconditionally on compassionate grounds because the clause is self-contained and therefore does not attract the provision to release on compassionate grounds from sentences of imprisonment in chapter 6 of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: In principle, I have no objection to the measure, but it gives us the opportunity to discuss how we enforce fines. It can be done in several ways, but if the message is sent out that even those offenders who try to buck the system will have to serve only a short term of imprisonment, we may fail to emphasise the need to comply with the payment of fines. The Minister may find this odd, but if we reach the point of locking someone up for fine default, it could be argued that they should be locked up for the full term, especially as terms of imprisonment tend not to be long and a person will usually have been dragged through a series of hoops to get to that position.
 I reassure the Minister that I do not intend to vote against the new clause, but it does raise certain issues. The fining system needs to work better. We have discussed the amount of outstanding fines. We know that a huge percentage of fines are not paid or collected and that people manage to slip completely from the clutches of the law. No one wants to lock up people for non-payment if there are other ways of dealing with the problem. We discussed seizing cars and other measures that could be equally effective, but we need to send an appropriate message about failure to co-operate. After all, if someone genuinely cannot pay a fine, there should be no difficulty in their going back to court and asking for the fine to be reduced or remitted. We need a system with some bite. I welcome new clause 8 but hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind when considering the issue of fine enforcement.

David Heath: I do not intend to divide the Committee on new clause 8, although I have a few comments to make. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has repeatedly made a point about the clarity of the court's decision. We have a situation where the court is determining a period of committal to prison and then releasing the prisoner early rather than specifying a term and a potential additional term. That point was also made by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

James Cran: Order. I cannot hear Mr. Heath because of the conversations taking place in this Room. I want to listen to him.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr. Cran. I am indebted to you for your attention. Obviously I am not commanding the attention of some of the other Committee members. When we talk about honesty in sentencing we should talk about honesty and clarity in this area. The Committee as a whole has agreed on that point.
 We need to consider the extent to which people are being committed to prison for what are effectively civil offences, be they fine defaulters or whatever, and whether that is the appropriate disposal for them. A different approach is needed for them from that to contemnors, who by definition open themselves to 
 whatever recourse the court may feel appropriate. The Auld report's basic recommendation is that conduct that cannot properly be regarded as criminal and which would be better dealt with elsewhere should not be the subject of criminal court proceedings. 
 The same applies to imprisonment. Things have changed over recent years and far fewer fine defaulters are imprisoned now. I hope that my figures are accurate: in 1994 22,469 males were imprisoned for an average of seven days and 1,454 women for an average of five days; by 2001 those figures were greatly reduced to 1,382 males for an average of six days and 73 females for an average of two days. That is a result of changes that were brought in.

Dominic Grieve: Of course I welcome the reduction in the number of people in prison for fine default, but does the hon. Gentleman have the figures for outstanding fine amounts and the extent to which outstanding fines have been rising for the respective years for which he is quoting? I do not have the figures, but I fear he will find that the amount outstanding on fines today is higher than it was then.

David Heath: The honest answer is that I do not have the figures. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right that the number of fine defaulters has increased. That has been the subject of a recent investigation by the National Audit Office. We should be concerned about that matter, but it is a question of what is the appropriate remedy. Imprisonment is rarely the appropriate remedy, but we have discussed other remedies in the Bill's context. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made the excellent suggestion of credit rating, which I still hope will find its way into Government thinking by circuitous means. We have discussed preventing the use of motor vehicles, which is a sensible route and one appropriate to the misdemeanour of default—I will not use the word crime. Prison is probably not the appropriate way to deal with it, especially in the context of the rapidly burgeoning prison population, which we discussed earlier.
 I welcome what the Minister said about the proposal. Prison is used as a sanction for default in some sorts of cases; in others, which gave cause for concern a few years ago, it is used less often. It was a ridiculous misuse of the system to put people into prison for TV licence evasion, which is essentially a civil debt, or for council tax offences. Contempt of court is the largest category and it is probably right that prison should remain as the appropriate sanction open to the court for contempt. We need to explore alternative, and better, ways to enforce fines so that they retain their deterrent quality, which should be the basis of their effect. Imprisonment is not the best, or the most cost-effective, way of dealing with the matter, notwithstanding the ameliorative effect of the Minister's proposal.

Hilary Benn: This is the third opportunity that the Committee has had to debate fines, so I shall be mercifully brief. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about the significant decline in the number of fine defaulters imprisoned in the past decade. I endorse
 what he and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said about the importance of maintaining and enhancing the credibility of fines as a penalty and the Government are proposing measures in the Courts Bill to that effect, including clamping vehicles, which the hon. Member for Rayleigh raised in the debate on his amendment. We will reflect on whether those measures are successful, learn from them, apply them more widely and then reflect further on them. It is important that fines should have credibility as part of the criminal justice system.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9 - Restriction on consecutive sentences for released prisoners

'(1) A court sentencing a person to a term of imprisonment may not order or direct that the term is to commence on the expiry of any other sentence of imprisonment from which he has been released early under this Chapter. 
 (2) In this section ''sentence of imprisonment'' includes a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Sentencing Act or section 208 of this Act, and ''term of imprisonment'' is to be read accordingly.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 13 - Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland

'Schedule (Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) shall have effect.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 19 - Power to impose unpaid work requirement or curfew requirement on fine defaulter

'(1) Subsection (2) applies in any case where, in respect of a person aged 16 or over, a magistrates' court— 
 (a) has power under Part 3 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) to issue a warrant of commitment for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction (other than a sum ordered to be paid under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29)), or 
 (b) would, but for section 89 of the Sentencing Act (restrictions on custodial sentences for persons under 18), have power to issue such a warrant for such default. 
 (2) The magistrates' court may, instead of issuing a warrant of commitment or, as the case may be, proceeding under section 81 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) (enforcement of fines imposed on young offender), order the person in default to comply with— 
 (a) an unpaid work requirement (as defined by section 179, or 
 (b) a curfew requirement (as defined by section 184. 
 (3) In this Part ''default order'' means an order under subsection (2). 
 (4) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 160 (which relate to electronic monitoring) have effect in relation to a default order as they have effect in relation to a community order. 
 (5) Where a magistrates' court has power to make a default order, it may, if it thinks it expedient to do so, postpone the making of the order until such time and on such conditions (if any) as it thinks just. 
 (6) Schedule 7 (breach, revocation or amendment of community order), Schedule (Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) (transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland) and Chapter 4 (further provisions about orders under Chapters 2 and 3) have effect in relation to default orders as they have effect in relation to community orders, but subject to the modifications contained in Schedule (Default orders: modification of provisions relating to community orders). 
 (7) Where a default order has been made for default in paying any sum— 
 (a) on payment of the whole sum to any person authorised to receive it, the order shall cease to have effect, and 
 (b) on payment of a part of the sum to any such person, the total number of hours or days to which the order relates is to be taken to be reduced by a proportion corresponding to that which the part paid bears to the whole sum. 
 (8) In calculating any reduction required by subsection (7)(b), any fraction of a day or hour is to be disregarded.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 20 - Fine defaulters: driving disqualification

'(1) Subsection (2) applies in any case where a magistrates' court— 
 (a) has power under Part 3 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) to issue a warrant of commitment for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction (other than a sum ordered to be paid under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29)), or 
 (b) would, but for section 89 of the Sentencing Act (restrictions on custodial sentences for persons under 18), have power to issue such a warrant for such default. 
 (2) The magistrates' court may, instead of issuing a warrant of commitment or, as the case may be, proceeding under section 81 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) (enforcement of fines imposed on young offenders), order the person in default to be disqualified, for such period not exceeding twelve months as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence. 
 (3) Where an order has been made under subsection (2) for default in paying any sum— 
 (a) on payment of the whole sum to any person authorised to receive it, the order shall cease to have effect, and 
 (b) on payment of part of the sum to any such person, the total number of weeks or months to which the order relates is to be taken to be reduced by a proportion corresponding to that which the part paid bears to the whole sum. 
 (4) In calculating any reduction required by subsection (3)(b) any fraction of a week or month is to be disregarded. 
 (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) by substituting, for the period there specified, such other period as may be specified in the order. 
 (6) A court which makes an order under this section disqualifying a person for holding or obtaining a driving licence shall require him to produce any such licence held by him together with its counterpart. 
 (7) In this section— 
 ''driving licence'' means a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52); 
 ''counterpart'', in relation to a driving licence, has the meaning given in relation to such a licence by section 108(1) of that Act.'—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 21 - Execution of process between England

'Section 4 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881 (execution of process of English and Welsh courts in Scotland) applies to any process issued under— 
 paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7, 
 paragraph 5(1) or 11(1) of Schedule 9, or 
 paragraph 12 of Schedule (Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland), 
 as it applies to process issued under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 by a magistrates' court.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 25 - Application of Part 7 to Northern Ireland

'(1) In its application to Northern Ireland this Part is to have effect— 
 (a) subject to subsection (2), and 
 (b) subject to the modifications in subsections (3) to (10). 
 (2) This Part does not apply in relation to a trial to which section 75 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11) (trial without jury for certain offences) applies. 
 (3) For section 39 substitute— 
 ''39 Procedure for applications under sections 36 to 38 
 (1) This section applies— 
 (a) to an application under section 36 which appears to the judge to raise questions as to whether subsection (6), (7) or (8) of that section applies, 
 (b) to an application under section 37, and 
 (c) to an application under section 38. 
 (2) An application to which this section applies must be determined— 
 (a) at a preparatory hearing (within the meaning of the 1988 Order), or 
 (b) at a hearing specified in, or for which provision is made by, Crown Court rules. 
 (3) The parties to a hearing mentioned in subsection (2) at which an application to which this section applies is to be determined must be given an opportunity to make representations with respect to the application. 
 (4) In Article 6(1) of the 1988 Order (which sets out the purposes of preparatory hearings) for subparagraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted— 
 ''(a) identifying issues which are likely to be material to the determinations and findings which are likely to be required during the trial; 
 (b) if there is to be a jury, assisting their comprehension of those issues and expediting the proceedings before them; 
 (c) determining an application to which section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies; or''. 
 (5) In Article 8(11) of the 1988 Order (appeal to Court of Appeal) after ''(3),'' there is inserted ''from the refusal by a judge of an application to which section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies or from an order of a judge under section 36, 37 or 38 of that Act which is made on the determination of such an application,''. 
 (6) In this section ''the 1988 Order'' means the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.'' 
 (4) For section 41(1) substitute— 
 ''(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal— 
 (a) from the refusal by a judge at a hearing mentioned in section 39(2)(b) of an application to which section 39 applies or from an order of a judge at such a hearing under section 36, 37 or 
38 which is made on the determination of such an application, 
 (b) from an order under section 40(3) or (5).'' 
 (5) In section 41(3) after ''order'' insert ''or a refusal of an application''. 
 (6) In section 41(4) for ''confirm or revoke the order'' substitute— 
 ''(a) where the appeal is from an order, confirm or revoke the order, or 
 (b) where the appeal is from a refusal of an application, confirm the refusal or make the order which is the subject of the application''. 
 (7) Omit section 41(5). 
 (8) For section 41(6) substitute— 
 ''(6) In section 31(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c.47) (right of appeal to House of Lords) after ''1988'' there is inserted ''or section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003''.'' 
 (9) For section 41(7) substitute— 
 ''(7) In section 35 of that Act (bail) after ''hearings)'' there is inserted ''or section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003''.'' 
 (10) For section 42(5)(b) substitute— 
 ''(b) the reference in section 16(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c.47) (notice of appeal or application for leave) to the date of the conviction is to be read as a reference to the date of the judgment mentioned in paragraph (a).''.'. 
 —[Hilary Benn.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1 - Increase in sentences for illegal trade in endangered species

'(1) In sections 1(6) and 4(5) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, for the word ''two'' in each place where it appears there is substituted ''five''. 
 (2) In regulations 3(1), 3(2)(b), 4(1)(b), 4(2)(b), 4(3)(b), 6(b), 7(2)(b), 8(8)(b) and 9(7)(b) of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 for the word ''two'' in each place where it appears there is substituted ''five''.'.—[John Mann.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Mann: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 Good afternoon, Mr. Cran. I hope that in this afternoon's spirit of rapid legislating the Minister will consider suitably this modest clause. It is designed to increase the maximum sentence for illegal wildlife trading from two to five years' imprisonment, which would make offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 arrestable. 
 I do not intend to take up much of the Committee's time with the argument. The issue was the subject of early-day motion 862 last year, which garnered the support of more than half of the Members of the House. I am sure that Ministers, Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and Parliamentary Private Secretaries would have joined the queue to add their names if protocol had deemed that suitable. Indeed, informal soundings suggested that many would have done so if released from their more onerous duties. 
 The aim of the clause is to strengthen the law, and considering the feeling of Parliament and the country, we have a duty to the wider world as well as ourselves to pass it.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman does the Committee a great service in introducing the clause, and I hope that he will take in good spirit the comments and suggestions that I may make about it. My reading of the clause and the briefings that I received on the background prompted both considerable sympathy with his aims and one or two slight concerns, which I felt that I should share with the Committee. We may be able to formulate a way forward, or the Committee may decide to accept the new clause in toto.
 We need to decide what we are trying to get at. I have a basic reservation about raising the maximum tariff of an offence for the purpose of making it arrestable. The hon. Gentleman will understand what I am getting at. I accept that offences need to carry a potential penalty of five years' imprisonment for them to be arrestable, but there are exceptions. If Parliament so chooses, we could make the offence arrestable without making it carry a five-year sentence. We could simply provide that notwithstanding the fact that the maximum sentence is two years, the offence should be arrestable. 
 That prompts further questions. First, is the current tariff too low for the highly objectionable offences? Have judges faced with sentencing indicated that they are unhappy about the two-year maximum and that a five-year maximum would be more appropriate and help the sentencing in a case of mass trafficking in endangered species? On the other hand—the Minister may be able to help us on this—does the history show that the vast majority of sentences have been fines or short terms of imprisonment? If so, it would be difficult to suggest that there was a problem with the tariff and that it needed to be raised from two to five years. 
 The second issue that the Committee must consider is whether the inability to arrest someone immediately for such offences has caused problems for those who seek to enforce the law. Someone who turns up at an airport with products from an endangered species in their luggage will be summonsed—or, under the new provisions, receive a written charge. Is there evidence that, as a result, people are being intercepted but never brought to court because the lack of arrestability of the offence makes that a problem? 
 Those are the two key issues, and I need to be satisfied about them, rather than told in a nebulous way that it would be sensible to raise the sentence to five years to make it arrestable. If I can be persuaded on either matter, I shall not stand in the Committee's way. 
 I shall listen carefully to the Minister, but I return to my basic point. If the problem is the lack of arrestability, it may be better to make the offence arrestable, and we could do that in a slightly different way from that suggested in the amendment. On the other hand, if there is a joint problem of a lack of arrestability and the fact that the courts find it impossible to sentence properly and feel that their hands are tied behind their back, the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has 
 much to commend it. However, we must look at the two issues separately, and the Minister or, indeed, the hon. Gentleman may be able to help us.

David Heath: For several reasons, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for tabling the new clause. First, I agree with it, and I will say why in a moment. Secondly, some of us have pursued the same line for a great many years. I do not want to go too far back into history, but there was a time when I worked for the World Wide Fund for Nature and made such proposals in the context of the Environmental Protection Bill back in the early 1990s.
 During the Committee stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000—it was about wider environmental issues, rather than endangered species—we struggled to ensure that there were appropriate tariffs for crimes against the environment. There was often considerable agreement between me, as the spokesman for my party, and the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who spoke for the Government. However, the problem with dealing with such issues in a wildlife Bill was that there was inevitably a read-across to the Home Office, which was not represented. This is not a criticism of Government communications; it is simply difficult in the context of a wildlife Bill, which deals essentially with environmental issues, to have the right advice to hand as to the effect of offences and how they are dealt with by the investigating authorities and the courts. It is useful to have an opportunity now to discuss at least one such issue in the context of a criminal justice Bill, and that does not often happen. 
 The hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that the new clause addressed a serious problem, and I know that he has pursued it in other ways and in other debates in the House. Now is not the right time to make a general speech about the trade in endangered species and the implications for the convention on international trade in endangered species. However, we must recognise that there is a great deal of trafficking of endangered species and products made from them. That happens throughout the world, including regularly in this country. One estimate is that, on average, two and a half items of ivory or elephant-skin products enter the country every day of every year. That places the issue in context. 
 The problem with CITES, which has its critics and its supporters, is that it is only as good as the individual jurisdictions' ability to enforce it in the various countries throughout the world. Although this country has sometimes been reasonably good at interdiction of material, it has not always been good at achieving successful prosecutions. 
 There have been extraordinary cases. In July 2002, 10 live crocodiles were intercepted in the hold of a plane at Heathrow. That strikes me as a fairly extraordinary seizure. I, in my naive way, might think that 10 live crocodiles were quite difficult to hide in one's hand baggage when entering Heathrow airport, but someone attempted to do so and clearly felt that they had a reasonable chance of success. 
 I have figures for seizures and prosecutions through CITES, which perhaps relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. In 1997, there were 495 seizures, but no one was successfully prosecuted. In 1998, there were 498 seizures, but no one was prosecuted. In 1999, there were 336 seizures, but no one was prosecuted. In 2000, there were 441 seizures and one prosecution. In 2001, there were 434 seizures and two prosecutions. There have been three prosecutions so far, according to the latest figures available. Obviously, 2002 has passed, but we do not yet have the final figures for it. In any case, the figures that I have given show that there is something wrong with the system.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I suspect that something is wrong with the system, but I would still like some help on what. I have been to Heathrow. I looked in particular into the seizure of illegal foodstuffs being imported. Stuff is seized on a massive scale if people apply their mind to it, although a lot gets in because they do not have the necessary resources. The truth, I have noted, is that there is no will to prosecute having seized, because people are so overburdened with other things to do that they do not seem to get their act together. However, that does not quite answer the question about whether the failure to prosecute is due to the inability to locate the person once he has moved on.

David Heath: I think that that is a fair criticism, although I cannot answer it. Perhaps the Minister can. There is an issue about the will to make the laws apply effectively, but I am happy to say that the atmosphere is changing. For instance, the Magistrates Association said recently that it wanted environmental crimes to be put before local benches much more often, and for courts to take those offences much more seriously.
 The National Criminal Intelligence Service recently extended its sphere of operation to have a specialist wildlife group. That is wholly welcome, because one problem that police forces throughout the country have is that, sadly, this matter is always a very low priority. I understand why it is a low priority: because the system is so stretched in other ways and it is difficult to maintain a fully equipped unit within a police force area to deal specifically with such crime. In any case, it is often conducted on a national or international basis. Organised crime is often involved nowadays, because we are talking about very large sums. 
 One sad result of listing particular endangered species is that substitute products are often made from related species and they, in turn, become endangered. There are all sorts of complexities. I believe that people are finally waking up to the fact that this area of crime must be treated seriously in the courts. I agree that there should be an evidential base for it, but my instinct is that the tariff is part of the problem. The fact that there are so few prosecutions compared with the number of seizures supports that contention, although I accept that it is not conclusive. If that environment is changing and we are prepared to take those crimes more seriously, the Bill can play a part. 
 Obviously, the Minister must tell us whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that there is a case to answer and that he is prepared to accept the amendment or to provide an alternative. I return to the important point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw: we can do something in the context of this Bill that could not be done by a different set of people with a different set of priorities in relation to wildlife legislation.

James Clappison: I defer to those who have carried out more recent research on the subject than I have. It is clearly complex and some important legal issues arise from it. When I heard the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and looked at the clause, I was surprised to see that the sentence is as low as it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is right in saying that we must respond to what the courts tell us about the adequacy of sentence and to judges who feel that they do not have a sufficiently high maximum sentence available to them.

Dominic Grieve: I qualify my own remarks. If nobody has ever been prosecuted for this offence, it is difficult for us to establish on a reasonable basis whether the available upper limit of sentence will ever be adequate.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In setting maximum sentences, we must have regard to the seriousness of the mischief at which they are aimed, and to public concern. I do not know whether the trade was first made an offence in 1976. It might have been legal before, but the decision was then taken to make it a criminal offence. The time is overdue to consider setting a higher maximum sentence. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view. I appreciate that this will probably cover a wide variety of offences. If, with a higher maximum sentence, we will attack and get at the people who are making large sums of money out of trading in endangered species, I shall be sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. I should know more about the matter than I do; it is a serious mischief, and we shall be responding to the concern of many of our constituents. They want the House to send a signal about how seriously we regard the offence of trading in endangered species. I cannot see how making it an arrestable offence would harm the enforcement of the law.

Hilary Benn: This has been an important and useful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for having initiated it by tabling the new clause. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the seizure and prosecution figures. Most of the seizures are items taken from tourists returning to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, there is no public interest in prosecuting following seizure. It might also be helpful to the Committee to point out that the penalty for smuggling offences in relation to these species is up to seven years in prison. We are considering the current two-year penalty for trading in the species.
 On arrestability, police officers can enter premises where they believe that there might be evidence only after applying for and obtaining a search warrant. In the meantime—we have had representations from the police on this matter—the individual may have the opportunity to move or conceal evidence, making it more difficult for them to be prosecuted. Making the offences arrestable in the way that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) supports would give police officers stronger powers, including, when a person is believed to have committed an arrestable offence, to enter and search their premises and seize evidence without a search warrant. 
 There have been some prosecutions under the provisions. There are a relatively small number a year—I understand that there are fewer than 10. However, it is precisely because the Government accept the argument that there is a case for increasing the penalty, for the reason that I have explained in relation to arrestability but also because of the seriousness of the offences, that the Government have already proposed that the penalties for such offences should be increased. We published a consultation document earlier in the year but have not quite finished the period of consultation yet. However, we shall soon have a clear idea of the response to our proposal. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would be prepared to withdraw the motion, we shall return to the issue on Report.

David Heath: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it is important that we do not miss the boat—if that is not inappropriate—because timing is critical with regard to preparing new clauses for Report. Vehicles for such legislation do not go past very often. I worry that the matter will be pushed into a tray pending a countryside Bill or a wildlife Bill, and those, unlike Criminal Justice Bills, do not come past very often at all, as we know to our cost. The issue is urgent and critical. The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to 1976. I think that 1976 was probably the time of the enactment of legislation on the basis of CITES in 1973. However, we have not taken the issue sufficiently seriously in this country for a long time, and now there is an opportunity to do so. I welcome what has been said, but please, let us not miss the boat.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the Minister's remarks and look forward to seeing the Government's ideas on Report, to which we are likely to respond favourably.

Mark Francois: I also welcome what the Minister has said. He asked us to be patient and said that things would be forthcoming, and I think that we are all grateful for that. I happen to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who has had a long-standing interest in these matters too, feels especially strongly on the issue, so I am sure that he will be delighted to read in Hansard what the Minister has said.

John Mann: I welcome what the Minister said. I am in such an unrebellious mood this week that I perhaps was overly brief. I should have pointed out that the penalty for smuggling, which comes under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, is seven years. In essence, we have the absurdity whereby if one is caught at Customs, there is a proper penalty, but if
 one gets through and starts trading in the country, one might not even get a slap on the wrist. There are a number of notorious cases in recent years in which that has been the case. The worst example that has been highlighted was that involving the shahtoosh shawls, in which 2 per cent. of the entire world numbers of a Tibetan antelope were slaughtered and imported by one London company. Those responsible were eventually caught and were fined £1,500. That was in 2000, so the case for strengthening the law and making such offences arrestable is, in my view, proven.
 The others who would give evidence to that effect are the wildlife crime officers. About half of British police forces have one. I hosted a reception with them here some time ago, and their view was that if they had more power—if it was an arrestable offence—they would be able to pursue those who trade in such materials more vigorously and more effectively. 
 Finally, I have spoken to the Indian Wildlife Board about the matter and it is in no doubt that the same gangs, particularly from the far east, who smuggle people and drugs and launder money, are also smuggling those items. It is therefore not the individual entrepreneur who is breaking the law but organised criminals. 
 I heard what the Minister had to say. I look forward to hearing a further response at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14 - Duty of Probation Officers to consult with magistrates (No. 2)

'It shall be the duty of the chief officer of each probation area to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities, to assist the probation service in the performance of its duties of reducing offending and supervising offenders in the community.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Graham Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The clause would re-establish local consultation between the probation service and magistrates. It also introduces an obligation for local probation areas to consult local communities, which are generally ill-informed about the work of the probation service. The National Association of Probation Officers is quite attached to the new clause. I wonder whether the Minister will consider it to be of value.

Dominic Grieve: This proposal, too, appears to have some merit. I would raise a couple of points. First, does it require to be put on a statutory basis? I would hope that it could be achieved without being spelled out in statute. Frankly, if courts are not operating such a system, they ought to. Parliament has a tendency to impose a series of burdens on organisations, and it is terribly easy for the organisations to pay lip service to them, which results in their not being particularly constructive.
 I would be interested to hear the Minister's views. There needs to be some liaison, but I question whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing.

Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North for allowing us, with new clause 14 and other new clauses that we shall debate later, to debate other issues linked to the Bill. I hope to find considerable common ground on some of those issues, and that many other hon. Members will be able to join a constructive debate.
 I am absolutely clear that local liaison between the probation service, the courts and the local community needs to be improved. I am on record as saying that we may need to put it on a statutory footing, but I want to paint a slightly different picture, and I want a sort of Second Reading debate on this sub-issue in the hope that we might be able to get something on the statute book. It seems to me that four relevant agencies have a duty to be accountable to the local community; and then there is local government. I start with local government. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to establish consultation arrangements with local communities, and we shall come in a moment to new clause 15 and other linked issues. 
 The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was generally welcomed, established the crime and disorder partnerships, which work well. They certainly work better than the previous non-existent structures. I can speak only from personal experience of London, but the Solicitor-General, I and others in our borough participated in the local police and community consultative group, which was set up somewhat belatedly after the Scarman inquiry into the Brixton riots. That scheme was eventually rolled out and used in every London borough. 
 The three MPs in my borough are members as of right of that body; it also includes representatives of the local authority, and others are elected to it from community groups. It is a good forum, but it is better now that it is more formal. A councillor has that responsibility, but it is not a party political matter. Under Labour and Liberal Democrat Administrations, a councillor has been responsible for community safety and for leading the police-council interface and the coalition of collaboration. That is very welcome. 
 The first stakeholder—that is the word of the decade—to be included in the consultative structure is the local authority. The second group is the probation service, which has a hugely important role. To be honest, no ordinary member of the public will know who runs the local probation service; no one would know where to find the probation office; and the service is never publicly held to account in the same way as the local authority. 
 In an earlier debate about the probation service, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome argued that community service should be more visible. He did not mean that people doing community service should be marked with their prison numbers, like prisoners on a day out, but that those supervising them should have something on their donkey jacket or whatever they are wearing which signifies that those 
 people are doing community service as a punishment but also as a community benefit. 
 I am keen to increase that sort of accountability. The probation service is increasingly organised in a way that is at least compatible with the principal local authority boundaries. I guess that that is the case in Leeds and other counties, including the county that includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. One can find the local authority parallel. 
 The third group of stakeholders is those who run the courts. My one suggestion to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the structure should not include only those who run magistrates courts. The Government are now reforming the courts system to ensure an integrated administration for magistrates and Crown courts. I support that, although I am uncomfortable about the way in which it is likely to roll out, because of the danger that it might close the local magistrates courts—I would not support that. 
 The court system needs to be accountable, but that should apply to all the courts. To take the borough that I know best, it would be nonsense for only magistrates courts to liaise when the Southwark, Blackfriars and Inner London Crown courts clearly play a big part in the process. That would apply whether it was a permanent Crown court or one of the occasional Crown courts sitting in the area. 
 The fourth group that should be involved is the police service, which is responsible for enforcing the law. The police are already in the system, because they liaise with the local authority in most areas, including your area, Mr. Cran, I imagine. Of those four groups—the police, the probation service, the courts and the Prison Service—the best known would be the local chief constable, commander or chief superintendent, to whom the public would look. It is normally that person who appears at public meetings or on a public platform, if people want to know about law and order and crime. 
 The last group—they may not exist in every area, but if they do they should be involved—are those who run the Prison Service institutions. The constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) includes Nottingham jail. I am not sure about the boundaries in Leeds, but I guess that Armley prison may be in the Minister's constituency. Wherever there is a big prison, whether it is open or secure, a young offenders institution or whatever, there is a public interest in what happens, whether it is successful, whether people are secure in it, whether they go out for day release and so on. My variation on the theme of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the consultation arrangements ought to be between the five agencies—four law enforcement and criminal justice agencies and the local authorities.

Stephen Hesford: No matter how sympathetic the Committee might be, the hon. Gentleman is pointing up one of my concerns. There is no corresponding duty on any of the other bodies to take part. No matter how hard the probation service might try, if there is no duty on the other agencies it
 might not work. The other concern is that there is no audit process. There is no duty on the probation service to tell anybody how well it is doing, so we shall never know.

Simon Hughes: Again, I hope that we can feel our way to consensus. I have only two more substantive points to make, and they are going in the hon. Gentleman's direction. I am concerned about why the intention of the new clause should be for the obligation to be on the probation service. It does not strike me as obvious that the probation service should have the lead responsibility.
 If we think widely about the five prospective parties to the consultation, it might be more logical for another to take the lead. I hold no brief against or in favour of the probation service, but it might be better for the local authority, or another body, to do it. The second point is exactly that made by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). This is a reasonable probing new clause. It puts a duty on the probation service to establish an arrangement. However, it places a burden on it that it is not resourced to carry—it is terribly overstretched—in asking it to consult the community. A process might already be set up—if there is a process under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, let us not duplicate it; if there is a way in which the police, the local authority and the community work together, let us not add another. 
 There ought, in any event, to be an obligation on all the parties to participate. It would be unfair to put a duty on the probation service and, possibly, on the magistrates court committee, and to give a nebulous, unspecified role to the local community, but to place no duty on the police or the courts—other than magistrates—or on the Prison Service, if it is involved. I am keen to find something that works without being heavily bureaucratic. We need something that can work easily, not a huge bureaucracy. 
 To put it visually, twice or three times a year, there should be at the top table at a public meeting, whether it is on the Wirral or in south London, the five people in charge of delivering the service. That way, members of the public would never ask why people are not getting tougher sentences without somebody being there to explain what the sentences are and to give accurate information. That is really important, otherwise—I have seen this, and so, no doubt, has the hon. Member for Wirral, West—there is a danger of terrible buck passing. It already happens too often. I have been at too many meetings at which members of the community meet police representatives who say, ''We cannot answer that—talk to the courts,'' while in fact the courts are not there to talk to.

Joan Humble: In his interesting comments, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the groups and organisations that we think should be involved in the consultation process. There are others. There are drug action teams, primary care trusts—because the probation service deals with people with health problems and abuse problems—and youth action teams. Does he agree that, rather than considering the matter from the point of view of which agencies and organisations should be consulted, a key issue is
 that ordinary people should know what is going on? Information should get to them, rather than being shared and, essentially, kept secret by well-meaning, interested people from different agencies.

Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree, but, to be fair, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has separated the process of getting people together from that of sharing information. I understand why he has done so, and the next new clause is about ensuring that the public are told. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is no good having a behind-closed-doors consultation in which the public cannot participate. That is why the initial picture that I have painted includes the opportunity for the public to ask questions of those who run the system.
 To pick up the hon. Lady's important second point about other agencies, she is absolutely right that without adequate drug services—in her area or mine—questions to the police and courts about why they do not deal more effectively with drug dealers will not be adequately answered. No one will be there to answer them, although there will be second-hand information. 
 I selected the agencies that I did—the hon. Lady may persuade me that I am wrong and that she is right; I do not have a final view—only because they are responsible for delivering law, order and punishment. However, they need to link up with the people whom she mentioned—those responsible for youth action teams, youth offender programmes and healthcare, including drug services, in particular. Were we able to deliberate further and get the measure right before the end of the Bill's passage through Parliament, we might be able to list those other obvious partners on whom we could agree. The danger is that the list would be as long as your arm; it would be like a monster, and it might be difficult to get all those people together at stage 1. I want us to get things right, and it is no good going off at half-cock and getting things wrong. 
 I have one last point, and the hon. Lady or others may want to comment. As the hon. Lady suggested, there is a terrible danger nowadays that the many well-intentioned, intelligent and good people who do good and important jobs will spend more and more time in committee meetings with one another. I do not know whether Fleetwood and Blackpool are the same as Southwark and south London, but wherever I go in the country, it appears that specialists are spending more and more time talking to other specialists. That happens in a rather unaccountable, undemocratic way in forums and other partnerships whose work does not feed into local authorities or other elected bodies. 
 My preference, as always, is that the local authority should act as the umbrella. The public should be encouraged to go to groups of people whom they can elect and remove to make them answer questions. Those people may say, ''We have no responsibility for the courts—they're run by a manager for our borough. Here they are: ask them the questions.'' Councillors and MPs may then say, ''You're not giving us a very good answer; it's inadequate—go away and get more information.'' I am trying to achieve something that is manageable and which includes everyone. The suggestion is that we try—at least in phase 1—to 
 include the agencies that deal with criminal justice delivery. 
 I have one final point. If the opinion polls show that law and order is one of the top three concerns among our constituents nationally, it is no good just including the police. We need the people who deal with prisons, probation—punishment in the community—the courts, and law and order. That is why the germ—or the early growth—of an idea before us is a good one, and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will be positive about collaborating with our Conservative colleagues and others to achieve something workable that could be included in the Bill before the end of its passage through Parliament.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has highlighted an important issue. He has given the Committee an opportunity to range across the mechanisms that are in place to achieve his objective, which I share, even if I am not persuaded that the mechanism that he proposes in the new clause would necessarily assist.
 First, I know that there was some concern that with the demise of the statutory probation liaison committees following the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 the kind of consultation and communication that my hon. Friend proposes in the new clause would be lost. However, I can assure him that joint working continues to be a priority for the National Probation Service. Indeed, it was made clear in the guidance issued last year by the probation service, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives and entitled, ''Working Together—the National Probation Service and the Courts''. I have a copy of it here. 
 The guidance sets out extremely clearly the importance that all the parties attach to effective communication and understanding of their respective roles and the importance of their working together to achieve their shared ends. Indeed, it suggests that something like the old probation liaison committees could provide a forum to review working jointly and to plan future events. Clearly the purpose of all that activity should be to achieve improvements in the criminal justice system. 
 The probation service has itself developed closer links with the local community. Since the establishment of the National Probation Service there have been the new local probation boards, which have a much more diverse membership than was previously the case. They are accountable for delivering the service locally. They have to produce an annual report. They have between five and 15 members, including a Crown court judge, a chief probation officer, four magistrates, two local councillors and others who could be lawyers or representatives of the business community or the wider local community. That is another forum in which the kind of dialogue that my hon. Friend wants could take place. I entirely accept that in general the public do not know enough about the work of the 
 local probation services and I am keen that they should. They would be greatly reassured by what they would learn. 
 I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which bring in the local dimension in co-operation with others. 
 I remind the Committee that the new local criminal justice boards bring together the CPS, the courts, the Prison Service, the probation service, the police, the magistrates and the youth offending teams to encourage joint working in the interests of improving the operation of the criminal justice system. They will produce annual reports, and the range of issues that they will deal with covers all the points that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that a range of mechanisms is already in place. I am not persuaded that we need to add to those. The underlying thrust of the new clause is that there should be more effective consultation and communication, and we all share that.

Simon Hughes: I am not sure whether the Minister expressly said this, but I believe that there used to be a statutory duty, to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North referred, between probation and magistrates. My understanding is that it was intended to be in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and somehow it was not included. That may be an unfair representation of the Government's position. I am also aware that a national liaison structure is in place, which picks up pretty well all the agencies that we have talked about.
 I am also aware that the new probation boards have come into operation. I guess that, to be fair to the Government, it is too early to assess how they work yet. I presume that no opinion polling has yet been done to see whether anyone in the community knows that they exist. I ask out of neutral ignorance. I presume that it is too early to expect them to be there, but it strikes me that they will be known only by the type of people who apply to sit on such committees. I am not very far away from the concept of a criminal justice board; however, it should be publicly accountable as well. It should be accountable not just by annual report, which is a pretty remote form of accountability, but by a visible presence and visible accountability and by linking up with the local authority. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham, North responds, will the Minister tell me how to persuade Government to turn the criminal justice boards into a body that did not meet just to write a report but which came together with local authorities to be held accountable? That would be a very profitable development and would obviate the need for legislation, which the new clause proposes.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's use of the word ''accountability.'' There are arguments for electing certain judicial officers, as is the practice in the United States. That provides a degree of public accountability. There are arguments for elected sheriffs in this country to be in charge of law
 enforcement in some areas. However, that is not what new clause 14 proposes. I wonder what accountability the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is true that there will be transparency if this works, and that is important, but I am not sure that accountability will be achieved.

Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I did not intend to be misleading. The Minister mentioned a form of accountability: an annual report that would be available to the public. A second, and greater, form of accountability would be a personal appearance and an obligation to answer questions. The third, and even better, form, although it would be constitutionally different, would be accountability through election or public collective appointment. I was not arguing for that in this context, although it raises many issues.
 We must try to establish, along with public accountability, dialogue that ensures that the sentencers understand, from listening to everyone involved, the context of what they are doing. That is particularly relevant in a week in which figures show by how much the prison population and average sentencing are increasing. We must make sure that the courts, the police and the probation service all make intelligent interlinked decisions that do not place unnecessary pressures on the system; decisions that do not have the opposite effect to what was intended.

Graham Allen: I am almost certain to press this to the vote. The Minister has shown why Sir Andrew Gordon, the chief executive of Ofmin, dubbed him the first beacon Minister of this Government. I am totally persuaded by my hon. Friend, although there were times during the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that I lost the will to live—[Laughter.] In view of the eloquence of my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15 - Reports to households on the operation of the criminal justice system

'The Secretary of State may by order require police forces, the prison service, the probation service, judges and lay justices to make joint arrangements for the dissemination to each household in any local area of such information and statistics about the criminal justice system as he may direct.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Graham Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I have raised this subject with my hon. Friend before. It is the point at which the lawyers in the Committee can walk out because it is about reconnecting the public with the legal process. Therefore the tea trolley can get back into full working order outside the Committee Room. I raised this earlier in the proceedings in order to make sentencing more relevant to people and more honest. The Government's proposals for a sentencing council and the Minister's willingness to entertain a further possible extension of a sentencing council to encourage people to think that it and the criminal justice system 
 are more relevant to their daily lives is part of that process. It is also part of the view, which we all share, that we should recapture the criminal justice system for the people whom it is meant to serve. 
 The proposal is quite simple; there would be joint arrangements between all those involved in the criminal justice system, be they police services, the Prison Service, the probation service or judges, whether full-time or lay. Those bodies will come together and explain what they are about and how they serve local communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) is a serving magistrate, and she may feel that that is an appropriate use of a minor amount of public funds. 
 I have used this example before: like many Members of all parties, I give my constituents an annual report, which costs a couple of grand to print and a couple of grand to be delivered by the Post Office. My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East and for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and I share a city, we know that for £12,000, it is possible to send every house a relatively simple and straightforward explanatory document of perhaps four sides of A4 paper. Such a document could explain to the local user of the criminal justice system what the system delivers; it could give phone numbers and explain how to make contact; it could give an idea of what the system does; and it could state the detection rates and the numbers of people that we have managed to put away or fine for criminal activities. 
 Such a document would ensure that people feel that the criminal justice system belonged to them because not only do they receive its services and benefit from them; they also fund it. Just about any other service, whether it is a local fitness club or a football team, expects, in return for each subscription or association, to give a report of its activities, however brief, each year. Such a report on the criminal justice system would not involve great expense, but it would be a great service to local people if we were able to reconnect them with the service in that way. 
 I do not want to make a long-winded speech that will turn off colleagues from an extremely good idea, so I propose the idea for consideration by the Committee.

Dominic Grieve: This proposal, too, seems to have much to commend it. It is true that in many areas, especially my police area, there is an increasing willingness to put out reports on, for example, the performance of the police and crime statistics. I have certainly fought as hard as I can to persuade the police that they should make local crime statistics available, but they are always a tiny bit cagey about that. They have a tendency to say that the statistics will be misinterpreted or misunderstood. However, the bar chart helpfully provided to me by the chief superintendent of the two main local police stations in my constituency when I meet him every quarter is perfectly easy to interpret and very useful. Obviously I appreciate that a 100 per cent. rise in rape from one case to two is not necessarily statistically significant.
 One must be careful about extrapolating a percentage increase from figures.
 I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and applaud the principle that people are entitled to much more information than they get. The question is how best to achieve a result. One of my anxieties is that the process must be divorced from central Government activity. The Minister will have to forgive me, but I do not think that the Government's annual report has been a model of usefulness.

Simon Hughes: It is a model of disappearance.

Dominic Grieve: Indeed, it has been deemed to be so useless that, as the hon. Gentleman said, it has now apparently disappeared. When it did appear, I found it to be a very poor document. We must be careful that we do not end up simply providing a propaganda excuse for some branch of the legal enforcement agency to put out its report. That tendency can be sometimes be found in the annual reports published by local police forces.
 The absolute need is for statistical material to be available. I do not share the belief that such material is misused, because if someone seeks to misuse it, it is possible to put out a correcting statement. The ability to obtain that information and to know what is going on would provide the greatest public reassurance about the way in which law enforcement takes place. We should be working towards that end, and I hope that the Secretary of State will encourage it. Perhaps he needs to be given a power to kick in the pants those bodies that are reluctant to give the public such information. We must be careful, however, not to encourage organisations to put out propaganda documents, because that is the easy way out for them, and it is not, I believe, what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North intends.

Joan Humble: I have one or two points to make. Further to the hon. Gentleman's comments, I can tell the Committee that in my local area all the agencies are keen on publishing statistics, but they are not always presented in an easily accessible form.
 My impression is that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is interested not only in statistics, but in giving people more information. For example, many members of the public do not really understand the importance and significance of community sentences. They tend to think that they are a soft option, but for many people they are not. When I sat as a magistrate, many people did not want a community sentence but preferred to go to prison for two or three months.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. I may have the advantage that my constituency is the lead area in the country on restorative justice, and much has been done by the police to publicise what that involves, so that people know that it is not a soft option. However, I suspect that there are widely differing practices throughout England and Wales, and it may be useful for us to address that issue.

Joan Humble: I certainly agree. There have been many changes in the criminal justice system over
 recent years, and pulling all of that together into an easily understandable form will be useful.
 In Blackpool, the new community safety partnerships have been good at giving information on crime statistics because they show a substantial reduction in crime. Our local evening newspaper has also been good at reporting that. There was an article this week on the substantial reduction in youth crime which highlighted the new agencies working together to effect that reduction. However, not everyone reads the local newspaper. 
 There is work to be done to ensure that members of the public understand the changes that have taken place in the criminal justice system. We need to examine those statistics and consider the best way of delivering to the public the information that they contain.

Graham Allen: My proposal may also combat some of the most obvious prejudices or misunderstandings such as ''They just give them a slap on the wrist'', ''They are out after serving half their sentence'' or ''We never see a policeman; we don't have any round here.'' We should be able to communicate the reality of how sentencing operates without going into great technical detail and in a way that ordinary people can understand.

Joan Humble: I entirely agree. I will develop that point further and say that such a move could be useful in helping to allay the fear of crime. Many people, especially older people and pensioners, have a fear of crime that is disproportionate to the criminal activity in their area.
 I hope that the Minister will seriously consider how best to disseminate information along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. It could be sent out to pensioners' groups and those who use day centres and luncheon clubs, so that they can see what changes have taken place and how those changes better protect and support them. That will not only educate them about what the police, the probation service and all the other groups are doing, but help to allay any unnecessary fears that they may have about becoming victims of crime.

Simon Hughes: I support the new clause, but I also have a major concern about it. I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will bear with me, whether or not he wants to give up the right to live during my contribution. I am going to have a bit of blast at his Government and the Home Office, because the one real failure of the proposition is that the statistics disseminated will be those that the Home Secretary directs. I do not blame the Minister, but the Home Office is increasingly disgraceful on statistics. It is reprimanded more and more, and it is seen to be fiddling the figures, misrepresenting and delaying them, which is completely unacceptable. I shall give evidence for that claim in a moment, in a specific example of a document that the Home Office published only this week.
 Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and 
 I seek to make ourselves accountable by producing reports for our constituents, as I know other colleagues do. That is a good starting point. Those statistics should be available, but I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood because in my area, like hers, the statistics are not always in an understandable or easily comparable format. Unless one can compare like with like, last year with this year, or the hon. Lady's town with other towns in Lancashire, the statistics do not mean much. They are only today's statistics. They may tell us that there were one or two rapes last year, but they are not useful unless one can see the pattern and make comparisons. 
 Last week, the Home Office produced a new way of comparing the effectiveness of police forces. If anything was likely to confuse the public, that was it. I refer all colleagues, if they have not seen it, to the extraordinarily confusing way of calculating how well one's police service is doing. That is not the only recent example. There is concern that the delivery of statistics should be taken out of politicians' hands and given to those who have no political axe to grind. 
 The former Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, told me that he had a personal interest in trying to get the statistics right. I recall that he is a lawyer by training, but I do not know if he ever qualified or trained as a statistician, so perhaps his wife's civil service influence persuaded him to that view. He thought that we should try to achieve a co-ordinated view of statistics and, to his credit, he set up a group of representatives from different parties to advise him on how to improve the statistics. Some of the group's work was good, but the record under the current Home Secretary has been worse. 
 Last year, I had occasion to report to the Home Secretary for the Statistics Commission—an independent body that examined some of the Home Office statistics. As I told him in the House, it has publicly criticised the way in which some of those statistics were produced and represented, and said that it was the fault of Ministers and the Home Office. 
 My specific complaint relates to the juvenile offending figures, which are simply a distortion of the truth. That is sad: I wish that they were true, but they are not. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) elicited from Ministers the fact that the current Home Office spends over £1 million of taxpayers' money on its press machine. Under this Home Secretary, the number of Home Office press officers and special advisers has doubled compared with the number under the previous Home Secretary, and the original cost of £845,000 a year has trebled. 
 The number of press officers alone increased from 13 in 1997–98 to 37 this year, so the Home Office spends £1 million a year on the press, while the police, prison, probation and other services are all substantially under-resourced and require more money. That strikes me as fundamentally wrong. The Home Office's defence—not a terribly strong one—is that independent consultants recommended those arrangements. Furthermore, the press office machine in the Lord Chancellor's Department has trebled in 
 size under the present Lord Chancellor, though at only £200,000 a year it costs much less. 
 I hope that I can persuade members of the Committee to share my concern that independent people should carry out independently checked actions. The process must not rely only on the Home Office. 
 On Tuesday the Home Office issued news release 051/2003 headed, ''Juvenile reoffending significantly reduced by new youth justice measures''. I shall read the first paragraph and subsequent short paragraphs: 
''Reconviction rates for juveniles have been cut by 22.5 per cent. overall, according to Home Office statistics published today. The new reprimand and final warning scheme in particular has helped the Home Office exceed by a long way its target of a five per cent. reduction in juvenile reconviction rates compared to 1997.''
 If that were true, it would be worth applauding.

Dominic Grieve: It is bogus.

Simon Hughes: I will show that it is an absolutely bogus claim. The news release continues:
''Reprimands resulted in a 47 per cent. proportionate drop in convictions, and final warnings resulted in a 19.3 per cent. reduction compared to the previous system of repeat cautions for young offenders . . . The statistics also show a dramatic decrease in the reconviction rate for females since 1997, which has fallen proportionately by 35.8 per cent. to 13.1 per cent.''
 The statistics sound like an extraordinary and amazing improvement. 
Mr. Allen rose—

Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the case, he can intervene later. The news release continues:
''The reconviction rate for males has also fallen proportionately by 20.8 per cent. to 30 per cent . . . Improvements in reconviction rates are better for the younger juveniles. Eleven-year-olds showed the greatest reduction in reconviction rates at 38.7 per cent. for males and 66.1 per cent. for females.''
 Let me now explain why all that is, in the words of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, ''bogus''. 
 It is bogus because the overall reconviction rate for the first quarter of 2001—the last quarter measured for the purpose of comparison—appears as 26.4 per cent. In fact, that is exactly the same reconviction rate as for the previous year. To turn the stagnant performance of no change into an apparent improvement, the Home Office compared the 26.4 per cent. of the previous year with the adjusted predicted rate for the most recent year, which was 34.1 per cent. The reality of one year was therefore compared with the adjusted predicted rate of the other year. Let me get the figures right: the expected rate for 2000–01 was 36.4 per cent.; the true rate was 26.4 per cent. The comparison is therefore completely bogus. 
 Since the figures appeared on Tuesday, I have had them examined by a statistician who discovered that the supposed decrease was not presented as a fall of 7.7 per cent.—the difference between the adjusted predicted rate and the real rate—but, in order to inflate the degree of improvement, as a percentage of a percentage. Other figures in the report use the same statistical sleight of hand. First, they do not compare two similar sets of statistics, and secondly, they wrongly calculate the percentage. 
 There are two other significant reasons why the report is flawed. The comparison between the 1997 statistics and these recent ones is entirely misleading because of the way in which the young people are dealt with. Since 1997, the Government have introduced two new options for the least serious offenders: reprimands and final warnings. The young people affected are, by definition, on the lower scale of offending—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will bear with me, I will give way in a moment. The figures include many individuals who were not included before and are the least likely to reoffend. The inclusion of that new group of offenders in the statistics has had the effect of lowering the reconviction rate without there being any improvement in the effectiveness of all the other things that were there before. Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?

Dominic Grieve: No, there is no need.

Simon Hughes: I give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.

Graham Allen: I have forgotten what I was going to say but as you are in a very generous mood, Mr. Cran, I should like to make a short speech on the Galleries of Justice, a popular tourist attraction in Nottingham. It has been open for a number of years, and many people come to Nottingham to see the dungeons underneath the Shire hall in the centre of the town. They see the chains that held the convicts, who were put down a hole in the basement of Shire hall. Before they were transported they were given food lowered down through the same the hole. The entry fee is only £5 or £6 and the chairman of the Bar Council was one of the first people to associate himself with that important legal and penal monument. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Cran. I gave way to an intervention. This does not sound like an intervention.

James Cran: We must clarify this. I had understood, Mr. Hughes, that you had finished your speech, but obviously this is an intervention. Make it very short indeed, Mr. Allen.

Graham Allen: Is this an intervention?

James Cran: Yes.

Graham Allen: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was a leading sponsor of that important breakthrough. Not only is there a full-scale courtroom from the 19th century, but when a visitor enters, he is given a ticket—

James Cran: Order. Mr. Allen, you lost me some minutes ago. We must go back to Mr. Hughes.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to give way to proper interventions. I treat the hon. Gentleman's interventions with courtesy and I hope that he will treat those of other members of the Committee similarly. He cannot expect collaboration one day and disrespect the next.
 My last point on the statistics is that not only has disproportionate weight been given in the comparison 
 to the number of juveniles who have received reprimands, cautions and final warnings—the things that are least likely to produce reoffending or to be relevant to the youngsters who are least likely to reoffend—but that adding the load of disposals completely skews the total. That skewing has masked the significant increases in reconviction rates for more serious offenders. 
 The worst thing in Tuesday's Home Office press release, which was headed ''Juvenile reoffending significantly reduced by new youth justice measures,'' is the significant increase in reconvictions of serious offenders. Some 55 per cent. of those with between four and nine previous convictions, including reprimands, were reconvicted in 2000, which is the first year for comparison. By 2001, that had gone up to 64.7 per cent. For those with 10 or more convictions in the year in question, the reconviction rate went up from 58 per cent. to 80 per cent. 
 I have taken just one example. If statistics are to be disseminated and they are to command the confidence of the public, they need to be independently attested; they should not be subject to increasing numbers of spin doctors manipulating them to hide the truth. 
 Over the last six months the Government should have learned the lesson that the public lose confidence in them when they seek to present something as a given when it turns out to be something else. That has been the outcome of the sad press management of many of the issues concerning Iraq. If the Government have not learned that lesson, it is sad both for them and for democracy. 
 I am signed up to the idea that we should give the public good, independent information. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said, the public might therefore be disabused of illusions; for instance, that very lenient sentencing is passed when it is not, or that community sentences do no good when they apparently do more good than imprisonment. I am not signed up to that being done on the basis of statistics that come from the Home Office, unchecked by anybody else. My example has shown that those are sometimes misleading, sometimes dangerously misleading, and sometimes not true.

Hilary Benn: This debate has ranged rather more widely than I had anticipated. I have just written a letter to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the subject of reconviction statistics, inviting him to come and meet the head of the Home Office research and statistics branch to raise this matter with him directly. I hope that he will do so; I am sure that he would find the conversation helpful.
Simon Hughes indicated assent.

Hilary Benn: The need to improve public understanding of the criminal justice system, and the provision of information about it, is a theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has consistently pursued with dogged determination during the passage of the Bill. It is good to see other hon. Members participating in the debate in his support. I am as one with him in this, as are the Government. My hon.
 Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood referred to the need for explanation and reassurance.

Graham Allen: What I cannot understand is why the Minister comes to the Committee without having before him the leaflet called ''Catching up with Crime and Sentencing''. I am amazed that he is so ill prepared.

Hilary Benn: That sounds like a prompt for a prop. My hon. Friend must have extremely good eyesight because I do have a copy of that excellent booklet, and I was about refer to it. There is a range of information available and I commend to hon. Members the CJS online website in which the material in the booklet can be found. We take my hon. Friend's point seriously. It is important to make information about how the system works and what it is intended to do as widely available as possible.
 That will be one of the tasks for the new local criminal justice boards in producing their annual report and making it available to the public. Another of their tasks is to increase public confidence. We agree that providing timely and appropriate information to the public is a very important way to do that. Obviously, it would be appropriate to make booklets and information available at courts. People who have come into contact with the criminal justice system, including offenders, victims, witnesses and their families would be interested in reading such information. 
 The hon. Member for Beaconsfield made a most important point about ensuring that information is disseminated at a local level. This is not about the Government putting out standard information, although there is a case for us reviewing the range of information centrally, which we are doing now. We would not want the 42 local criminal justice boards to reinvent the wheel and each try to write their own explanation of how the broad principles of the criminal justice system work. However, there is a case for providing them with information to set in the local context. 
 I concur with the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of local information, because it brings these matters to life. It also deals with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North about reassurance and public confidence developing locally through mechanisms such as consultation, channels of communication and places where publications can be placed. Leaving things to be done locally ensures that information can be communicated effectively, as my hon. Friend wants. Although I concur with the spirit of the proposal, I hope that he will ask for leave to withdraw it.

Graham Allen: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he accept that although it is important that such material is available at community centres, pension clubs and so on, we have all been to such places and seen the racks stuffed with well-meaning leaflets from various bodies, so the key aim should be to get information to individual households. Will the Minister please underline his commitment to encourage people at local level in that respect?

Hilary Benn: I will reflect on that point but it is the job of the local criminal justice boards, with their responsibility for public confidence and communication, to determine the most effective way of getting the information out and about.

Simon Hughes: I want to correct an error that I made earlier. I referred to answers given to the hon. Member for Taunton, but I meant to say my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).
 On the subject of the interchange between the Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North, I make a practical suggestion: although dissemination may technically be the responsibility of the criminal justice board, the best way of getting information out at least cost would be to use the same mechanism as the local authority. Once a year it sends every household an envelope containing details of local authority services along with the council tax bills. The disadvantage of such a suggestion is that sending everything together may be an information overload, but the advantage is that it would include a report on the local authority services. 
 I understand from Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that they are considering sending civil defence emergency planning information in the same way to save money and to facilitate access. I am signed up to idea of information being given to every household rather than remaining on the racks in the library or community centre, and my suggestion would ensure consistency, regularity, visibility and comprehensibility. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion and talk to his colleagues about it. 
 I appreciate that it will take another year's cycle before any such proposal is adopted. However, I would support it as the next stage in the process that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North seeks to persuade us to accept, even if it came from the criminal justice boards, provided that there were agreed statistics, verified in a way that would avoid any accusations of party political or Government spin. The worst thing would be if they were seen not to be credible, which would do no one any good.

Graham Allen: I thank the Minister for his helpful response. There is still a little further to go on the matter, which I may raise on Report. The local boards need a nudge from the centre; a model, or examples of best practice from elsewhere, may be just what they need. The cost of delivering a glossy A4 document to every household in my city would be a mere £12,000. That would be a tiny part of the budget but it would have a massive impact in doing as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood said and bringing the perception of crime into alignment with reality. I thank the Minister for his reply. I shall continue to pursue the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 17 - Duty of prison to rehabilitate

'It shall be the duty of the prison service to encourage the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, in particular through education and 
the development of social, emotional and behavioural skills, and to identify and account for the resources it specifically provides for this purpose.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Graham Allen: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 18—Personal plans for prisoners—
'It shall be the duty of the prison service to prepare a personal plan for each offender serving a sentence of over 12 months, setting objectives for his rehabilitation and reform. It shall be the duty of any person making or considering recommendations for the early release of any prisoner to take into account his achievement of the personal plan prepared in pursuance of this section.'.

Graham Allen: It seems peculiar to be discussing a Criminal Justice Bill but not talking about ensuring that people do not commit further serious offences. That is a massive omission and I hope that this brief debate will go some way to making amends. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister on the subject, and without wishing to embarrass him, I must say that his replies are a credit to him and his officials, because they are thorough and show an understanding of the problems that has not always been evident in previous communications with Ministers. If Armley is in or near his constituency, that may go some way to explaining his knowledge of the issue.
 At some stage, we might need to consider producing clearer definitions or a clearer distinction between a rehabilitation service for those who could benefit from one and a containment service for those people on whom we have given up in terms of rehabilitation. I do not know whether that clarity is a long-term prospect, but being the generous people that we are, we try to assume that there is hope for everybody—certainly hope for most people—particularly for those who are sent to prison for shorter sentences or for the first time. We hope that, as a result of our actions, people who leave prison will not reoffend. We are not being soft, because it is a simple case of self-interest. It is important to establish the rehabilitative aspect of a prison regime. The new clauses would emphasise that in the Bill and make it clear that that duty falls on the Prison Service. 
 There is a slightly broader aspect to the issue. I am sure that the Prison Service is already aware of this, but we want to make patently obvious the importance of the personal development of individuals. I have previously quoted from the little piece of paper that I carry around in my diary and referred to the sort of people who are habitual reoffenders. If we can break that cycle of illiteracy and inadequacy and ensure that people understand how they can progress, we will make a serious impact. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey often compares community and prison sentences, emphasising that community sentences are more effective. I hope that he would agree that both possibilities leave a great deal to be desired and are in need of significant reform to provide the sort of contribution that we all want to see from the Prison Service, because we are far from getting it right. The range of opportunities should be 
 broadened to include the teaching of behavioural skills and parenting skills for people of the appropriate age, even if they do not have children. Teaching in social and emotional skills would also be extremely valuable. I am not saying that we need to give people an easy ride when they are in prison. That is where new clause 18 comes in: it is extremely clear that there shall be a challenging regime on personal development. 
 It may be pretty tough to serve time in prison, but I can tell the Committee that one of the toughest aspects of life may be if an illiterate person was to learn to read, often without too much support and in a one-to-one situation. If people can meet such challenges, they are doing extremely well. Offenders who serve a sentence of more than 12 months should have a personal plan, setting clear objectives for rehabilitation and reform. 
 Without wishing to contradict what I said earlier about honest sentencing, one possible carrot for prisoners in such a situation would be the possibility of early release, provided that they had met the targets in their personal plans. Undertaking to reach such targets and reaching them could be rewarded by some time being taken off their sentence. That in itself would be an incentive, as would the achievement. I am talking not about people studying law in their spare time, as it were, and trying to find ways out of prison, but about their learning basic literacy and numeracy skills or studying for GCSEs or trades, which, in the circumstances, would be extremely challenging for them to accomplish. If they can do that successfully, they deserve a reward, well beyond the personal development that will have been achieved. 
 I apologise to the Committee for taking a few minutes to put my thoughts on the record, but the slight omission from the broad sweep of matters covered by the Bill is a serious attempt to ensure proper reform and rehabilitation. I accept that the Minister takes such matters extremely seriously. I commend him for the work that he has done already, and I hope that there may be a prison reform Bill in the near future that will help to create the sort of individuals that we would have liked them to be before they went into prison.

Dominic Grieve: Again, the hon. Gentleman has done us a good service in highlighting and encouraging debate on such an important issue. When considering the two new clauses, in turn, he is aware that the Prison Service already has a mission statement that is on show in the entrance of practically all prisons and in various other places, too. It is general, but it emphasises rehabilitation. I can almost remember the exact words that are used, but I shall not attempt to quote them off the top of my head.
 The proposal is a little more prescriptive in highlighting the issues that need to be considered by the Prison Service. I should be surprised if members of the Committee disagreed with the way in which those sentiments are expressed in new clause 17, but it is an interesting subject for debate. While I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not necessarily tabled it as material for immediate inclusion in the Bill, there is 
 a need at some point for a new prison Bill. We need to consider that. It is probably more appropriate for that to be done there rather than here. The criminal justice system includes the Prison Service. We have dealt with sentencing and community sentencing in Committee, but the operation of prisons is taking us a little further down the road than the Bill, in its more general approach, is capable of doing. Prison rules should perhaps be re-examined, and there is plenty of material for the Select Committee to consider in that regard. 
 My experience of visiting prisons is that something close, if not identical, to the personal plan in new clause 18 is already in place for individual prisoners. I do not know whether I have just been lucky in my visits as my party's prisons spokesman and whether, like the visits to the Potemkin villages, I have always succeeded in visiting good prisons. Some prisons may not have such plans, and the Minister may be able to clarify the point. However, I think that personal plans for prisoners are being almost universally applied. Once their anticipated release date has been identified, there is a build-up towards that. The difficulty in my experience is that personal plans for offenders are continually disrupted, and the principal disruption is because of prison overcrowding.

Graham Allen: The problem is not that prisoners do not have something approximate to what I have called a personal prison plan. The problem is the disruption that the hon. Gentleman is about to describe, as well as the fact that the plans are not properly resourced or taken seriously enough by either the offender or the institution. It is not the fact that we do not have them, but the degree of seriousness in applying the criteria.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As one visits prisons, one is struck immediately by their immense variability. Governors have considerable power, which can be good, but a prison is ultimately the product of the material conditions and physical environment in which the prisoners are detained, in particular with overcrowding, and the governor's dynamism in running the prison. Those are two key determinants. Money is obviously important, but I think that it is a lesser consideration.
 I often visit prisons 12 or 18 months after they have received a devastating report from the chief inspector of prisons. I walk in and get the impression that I am seeing a completely new world. Having found out that a new governor has been appointed nine months previously, I notice that many of the problems identified by the inspector have been addressed through purposeful activity. I speak to the inmates, believe that I am getting an honest answer and come out impressed. Nine months later, I read that that prison has been subject to massive overcrowding problems, and the inspector's next report shows that the situation has deteriorated again. Maintaining improvement is immensely difficult, and that is brought home to me each time I visit a prison. 
 That said, in fairness to the Government, progress is being made. I have seen positive changes in prison officers' ethos and approach to work, but my experience is that the key problem is that a purposeful regime cannot be delivered in an overcrowded environment, for two reasons. First, the 
 strain on officers in managing the prison means that classes and opportunities for activity go by the way. Secondly, the planned progression of the offender through the prison system is disrupted, and in particular sudden and arbitrary moves to other locations become so common that the offender never completes a full programme. The Minister will again say that steps are being taken to remedy those problems, but I have heard examples of prisoners on educational programmes finding themselves 250 miles away in a new location 48 hours before they are supposed to take the NVQ tests. That is scandalous. We should not be surprised if prisons do not rehabilitate if we do not have planned progression. That is why I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that point in new clause 18. 
 However, if we have got the provisions right we do not need new clause 18, because the Prison Service has the issue very much in mind, although it might provide an interesting benchmark to have plans set out in that form because the Prison Service would have to explain why the programmes have not been fulfilled. That would involve not only the unwillingness of the inmate to perform them but the demoralisation attendant on the programme fizzling out. That is probably a greater issue than we can deal with this afternoon. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing about it.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has brought us to matters of central importance. We do not have a prison reform Bill here, although I am less persuaded that we need a new Bill; I think it is more a matter of administration than legislation. I support new clause 17; I believe that we could pass it into law because although it has implications it would simply formalise the set of principles in the Prison Service's current statement of purpose, which has been developed and thought through and is likely to stand the test of time.

David Cameron: Would it not be odd to pass into law a statement about the purpose of the Prison Service that did not include the duty to keep prisoners in prison?

Simon Hughes: That is a good point. I am sure that we could all sign up to an amendment that included it. Interestingly, however, it is not in the Prison Service's statement of purpose as I understand it.

David Cameron: I think it is.

Simon Hughes: I stand to be corrected if other hon. Members know better than I—the Minister may correct me. If I am wrong about the current statement of purpose, an accurate version should be included. If the hon. Gentleman's evidently important point is included, it should be included here, but my recollection from when I was in the Prison Service buildings and my advice is that that was the current statement of purpose. There is also the fact that the Prison Service is partly responsible for some activities of prisoners who are outside on courses and schemes and so on, so the issue may become complicated. No
 doubt the Minister will tell us whether this is an accurate reading of the current statement of purpose.
 It is perfectly reasonable to put new clause 18 into law, although I accept, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield put it, that this is in practice what the Prison Service aspires to. 
 Will the Minister confirm that this is a current requirement of the Prison Service, although it is a non-statutory requirement, so the provision would turn a policy requirement into a statutory requirement? 
 The proposal for sentences of 12 months and above might be a practical place to start, but the same logic should be applied to all prisoners. The implication of custody plus, as I have understood it, is that the whole sentence is a package and the package implies a sentence plan for the individual prisoner. I presume that it might be possible to have a sentence plan for prisoners whatever their length of sentence. It should be easier in the future because there will be fewer variations in the length of short sentences as the Minister has indicated. Sentence plans are a good idea which could be put into law. 
 I guess sentence plans would be best drawn up under the new regime as a combination of input from the Prison Service and the probation service, because they will be partners in delivering the two parts of the sentence. Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I pay tribute to Martin Narey for his conduct while director general of the Prison Service. I have not seen him since the announcement, but I understand that he has been promoted to become one of the permanent secretaries in the Home Office with a more general responsibility for those matters. I have heard, but not seen, that his deputy has been appointed to take his place but has not yet taken up office. 
 The Prison Service has made a lot of progress, much good work has been done, and there are many good members of the senior management team and many good prison governors. However, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, its failing, shown in the prison statistics, is that overcrowding has caused the most significant deterioration in the services provided for prisoners. 
 The Prison Service has targets and performance indicators, of which I understand that there are 15. Six of those were not met during the year that was reported on yesterday; one was to do with the level of assaults in prison, but more significant is the failure to meet the target for the time that prisoners spend in purposeful activity. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North was right to remind us that it is purposeful activity and people's response to being given something constructive to do that allows prison officers to judge whether prisoners deserve to be released early, and to make a contribution to the community, but we cannot have purposeful activity if it is not available because of overcrowding, and if it does not happen, it will be to everyone's disbenefit. 
 I hope that the Minister will pass on my congratulations to Mr. Narey. More important, I hope that he will remember that we all share the same objectives, but it frustratingly looks as if they are getting further away under this Government's 
 stewardship. If we hold down the prison population and reduce overcrowding, a commensurate increase in purposeful activity will surely follow. Those matters need to be urgently dealt with, and only then will individual prisoner plans be able to deliver the sort of rehabilitation that we all want.

Hilary Benn: This has been a short but excellent debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North for initiating it. I echo the kind words spoken about Martin Narey by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. During his time as director general, Martin has made decency the watchword of his stewardship of the service. He is widely admired for that, and he will take that skill and experience to his new post as commissioner of correctional services.
 In answer to the hon. Member for Witney, the statement of purpose of the Prison Service is clear. It says: 
''Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release.''
 Those words are to be found at the front of every prison. It is further supplemented—this is why the new clause is not required, although I concur wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend's aim—by the Prison Service objective of 
''Providing constructive regimes which address offending behaviour, improve educational and work skills and promote law abiding behaviour in custody and after release.''
 That builds on the statement of purpose. 
 Reform and rehabilitation have a place in the Bill, which we considered when debating the purposes of sentencing in clause 126. The clause, the statement of purpose and the Prison Service objective cover the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. That is reflected in the work that the Prison Service is doing to reduce reoffending and to rehabilitate. It is reflected in the increased investment in education and drug treatment, resettlement and offending behaviour programmes in prison. It is reflected in the Prison Service's current target of 45,000 key work skills achievements by prisoners. Other targets relate to basic skills at levels 2, 1 and entry level. 
 In an excellent speech, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield put his finger on the big issue for the Prison Service, which is maintaining improvement. That is something on which I reflect, because the truth is, as he said, that when things are not going terribly well, the Prison Service is effective at making improvements. That may involve a new governor or a new approach, but it is maintaining the improvement that is the real challenge. That simply reflects how difficult it is to run a prison. The hon. Gentleman was right that the impact of population pressures, overcrowding and the sudden movement of prisoners does not assist efforts to achieve the objectives that we all share. 
 I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's second point about sentence plans, and I am happy to confirm that all prisoners with a sentence of 12 months or more currently have a sentence plan. An expression of the closer working of the prison and probation services involves the new assessment tool, OASys, which we discussed previously. That is being rolled out over 18 months throughout the Prison Service, starting in April. Following implementation, every prisoner serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will have an OASys assessment completed for them, which will inform the sentence plan. 
 There is a difficulty with my hon. Friend's new clause, however. Let us say that early release—depending on the length of sentence, that assessment may fall to the Parole Board to undertake—were made dependent on completion of the objectives. There may be reasons why the prisoner was not able to achieve the objectives set out in the sentence plan. That may not be the offender's failure. They may have had to move somewhere or they may not have been able to undertake the course that they hoped to in the establishment where they found themselves. For that reason, it would not be sensible to create the link that my hon. Friend seeks. 
 However, the Prison Service shares the general objective of promoting rehabilitation in prisons. The amount of time, attention, effort, professionalism and dedication that goes into rehabilitation in prisons today is unrecognisable compared with what happened a generation ago.

Graham Allen: It is ironic that stability and staying in one place is as much a problem in educating prisoners as it is in maintaining an effective local police force. Movement of people is the bane of both areas. None the less, my hon. Friend the Minister has, as always, made an eloquent and persuasive argument and talked me into begging to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 22 - Adjustment of fines in line with inflation

'All fines operative under current statutes shall be automatically adjusted in line with inflation each year, and be rounded down to the appropriate £10 unit, with the date of coming into force of this section as the base line for calculation.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dominic Grieve: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about individual fines, I think that what he proposes is unnecessary, because within the scope of the fining scales, the court can exercise its discretion to reflect inflation anyway. He may be referring to changing the scales of fines annually, rather than by statutory instrument. They are changed fairly regularly, but there may be intervals of some years, so the hon. Gentleman may have a point. Perhaps we should review the scales more frequently. However, with low inflation rates, such as those that this country has had recently, that is probably not very significant.

Simon Hughes: This is about the fourth relevant point that has come up in relation to fines. The
 Minister has already talked about such issues, and we all know that the difficulty is not just the tariff and adjusting the tariffs, but getting maximum fines right and ensuring that they are relevant for the corporate sector, so that they affect it and are noticeable. We must also ensure that fines are relevant to the private individual and are paid. We have talked about the reversal of or changes in trends. Above all, we must ensure that we reverse the reduction in the use of fines from, I think, 35 per cent. a decade ago to 24 per cent. now, and pick up the point that the Home Affairs Committee made strongly, and to which we have referred, about the more than 40 per cent. of uncollected fines. There is a package of responses to the under-use of fines, and the provisions might be a way of dealing with one bit of that package. However, it would be helpful if Ministers reflected on how to pick up on the issue and on the Home Affairs Committee recommendations, and on how to make fines more credible, useful and effective.

Hilary Benn: The principal arguments in response to the proposals were made eloquently by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. There would be practical difficulties in an annual review for a number of reasons. One thinks not least of the signs that one sees that warn of penalties for parking or dog-fouling. The proposals might be good for the signwriters, but it would not necessarily be a sensible use of local authority resources to have to change those annually.
 Magistrates are currently not fining to the maximum, so that is not the issue. The average fine is £134. In part that is a consequence of the up-tariffing that we have been discussing. Fines are being used less, community sentences and custody are being used more, and there is the rate of inflation, to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield drew attention. However, the real issue in relation to fines, which we have discussed three or four times, is about greater effectiveness in collecting those that are handed down.

Graham Allen: When the same crushing arguments are put from both Front Benches, I realise that I have probably stumbled on something important. However, provided that the hon. Member for Witney has another look at the amendment that was on the Floor of the House last night, I am happy not to prolong this any further, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 24 - Powers of confiscation

'(1) A police constable shall have specific powers to confiscate certain substances, including alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis and other controlled drugs, when in a public place, in order to help maintain public order and decency, as follows. 
 (2) The powers under subsection (1) include: 
 (a) the power to confiscate cannabis from anyone in a public place who is either smoking, selling or openly carrying it; 
 (b) the power to confiscate cigarettes from anyone who is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 who is either smoking or openly carrying them; 
 (c) the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone under the age of 18 who is either drinking it, selling it or openly carrying it; and 
 (d) the power to confiscate alcohol from anyone in a public place who is causing a public nuisance.'.—[Mr. Cameron.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Cameron: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I was not sure whether we would reach this new clause today. I thought that I would be able to spend all weekend writing a long, detailed oration in support of the new clause, and give a speech that would put even the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to shame, but I have not had the time to do that. However, the new clause is of such stunning simplicity and clarity that it does not need a long speech. I am sure that the Minister will jump to his feet and say that it is of such stunning simplicity and clarity that it should be immediately written into the law, and that we can all agree to it and go home. 
 We are dealing with the problem of antisocial behaviour. Every hon. Member is familiar with it in our towns and cities. It is often caused by drink, is sometimes caused by drugs, often involves young people and sometimes involves public drinking. If I had to boil the problem down to a soundbite, it would be, ''The bad behaviour of the few spoiling the quality of life of the many,'' which is almost new Labour-ish in its simplicity. 
 In my view, the police would like the powers detailed in the new clause in one place. The thinking behind the new clause came from a conversation that I had with a senior police officer in Oxford in the context of the reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C. He said that he did not have a problem with that, but that he wanted clear and specific powers to deal with low-level public order and decency offences related to drink and drugs. I have set those powers out clearly. 
 Police officers are not lawyers. They have to uphold the law, and it helps them if it is simple and clear. The new clause gives police constables powers to confiscate substances to maintain public order and decency. It refers to cannabis in a public place, the power to confiscate cigarettes from those under 16, and the powers to confiscate alcohol from anyone under 18 and from anyone in a public place causing a public nuisance. The provisions are in plain English and are wholly worthwhile. 
 I appreciate that we have antisocial behaviour orders, which I support, and greater involvement of local authorities. Tomorrow, as everyone who reads the Witney and West Oxfordshire Gazette knows, I shall attend the launch of the new acceptable behaviour contracts with the chief constable for Thames Valley, which is very worthwhile. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there will be a real impact on antisocial behaviour only if we have both community policing on our streets and absolute clarity about what the police can do to keep public order and deal with antisocial behaviour. 
 I mentioned what I call the Ronseal test the first time that I spoke in Committee. It is important that legislation does what it says on the tin. The new clause 
 represents the Ronseal test writ large. I know that many of the powers are set out elsewhere, and indeed the Licensing Bill, which is being discussed in another place, will pass into law the specific power on alcohol. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) promoted a private Member's Bill to address several of issues. However, this is the first time that the powers have been set out clearly in one place.

Paul Stinchcombe: I seek two points of clarification from the hon. Gentleman. Did he intend for the new clause to be drafted to apply to every single prescribed drug? It also seems to legitimise taking away the cigarettes of 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20-year-olds who lawfully smoke in public. That is rather illiberal.

David Cameron: On the second point, the new clause absolutely does not do that. Subsection (2)(b) gives
''the power to confiscate cigarettes from anyone who is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 who is either smoking or openly carrying them''. 
It is as simple as that.

Paul Stinchcombe: What if young-looking 20-year-olds are smoking cigarettes? A person might think that they are under 16 and could take their cigarettes off them.

David Cameron: I am relying on the common sense of the police constable, although sadly we do not have sufficient of them. It would be clear that the police would know from one piece of law their power to confiscate alcohol and cannabis. Police constables currently say that those powers are not clearly set out in law. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a background in the law, and it would be easy for him to help me to redraft the new clause to make it even clearer and more straightforward. However, I am sure that hon. Members would not disagree with the purpose of the new clause—clarity. The Minister has said that measures in the Bill are designed to codify the criminal justice system, and it would be worth while to simplify it at the same time.

Paul Stinchcombe: What about prescribed drugs, which all seem to be controlled drugs?

David Cameron: It may be that subsection (2) should be subsidiary to subsection (1). Subsection (1) was an attempt to set out clearly the areas in which the powers would apply, and subsection (2) sets out specific instances. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point about cannabis in subsection (2)(a). That reflects the specific point made by the police in Oxford when they told me, ''Fine, reclassify cannabis, but make sure that we have the power to confiscate it if people smoke it openly while it is still an illegal drug.'' I am supposed to be a liberal on such matters. I supported the reclassification of cannabis, having listened carefully to the arguments that the Select Committee heard. However, it is important to listen to the worries of the police and people who see antisocial behaviour and minor public disorder despoiling our towns and cities. The new clause would address that.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, and we should listen to those who tell
 us about problems of antisocial behaviour and do all that we can to help them, as humble Back Benchers and members of the Committee.

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. That is exactly what I am trying to do. ASBOs, acceptable behaviour orders, crime and disorder partnerships and new ways in which police and local authorities work together will all help, but at the end of the day, we need police officers on the streets who have a clear knowledge of their powers to deal with minor misdemeanours.

Paul Stinchcombe: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify exactly how young-looking 20-year-olds smoking cigarettes in public could offend against public order and decency?

David Cameron: As I said, subsection (1) sets out the overall aim of the new clause and the specific powers are in subsection (2). The hon. Gentleman is over-enthusiastic about the minutiae of the new clause, given the time of day. Of course the Minister will sharpen up some of the drafting, but the idea is simple: the police constable should have in one place in the law a clear explanation of what he or she can do about underage drinking, underage smoking and the taking of reclassified drugs, to help keep public order. Is that really so complicated?

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that unfortunately his new clause has just failed the Ronseal test?

David Cameron: Any Back Bencher who has ever tabled an amendment or a new clause in a Committee knows that every tin of Ronseal is open to a little improvement. We should at least go with the spirit of it, which is to try to draft something clear and easy that police constables, who are not lawyers, will be able to understand and use.

David Heath: I do not want to destroy the hon. Gentleman's flow, but does he anticipate the police officer having the power not only to confiscate but to destroy or dispose of the said drink or drugs? I have visions of policemen going around the streets with half-empty cans of Special Brew.

David Cameron: Guidance to the police would deal with that. What matters here is the power to do the right thing in the town or city centre where there is antisocial behaviour or minor public disorder. Such behaviour affects towns and cities in all our constituencies. I am sure of that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere supports me. I commend the new clause to the Minister and to the Committee, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend should not let nit-picking deter him.
Stephen Hesford rose—

Dominic Grieve: Hang on; I have hardly said anything yet. This illustrates yet again that a strange madness starts to pervade the Committee the moment that the word ''cannabis'' is mentioned. It manifests itself by hon. Members frequently jumping up and down.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Witney makes a good point. There is a problem of low-level disorder, which is often manifested by underage drinking, underage smoking and people openly carrying cannabis around in the streets. Any open flouting of the law in that way is a symptom of disorder. I remember a chief constable telling me that he had been to the United States to study how crime reduction techniques had been applied in New York. He said that what had brought home most forcefully to him the extent of the change in New York was going into an extremely deprived area that at one time had had an appalling reputation for major crime. He saw a policeman cycling down a street and stopping two 13-year-old girls who were walking together around the back of the building, saying, ''Now, girls, you're not going behind the sheds to smoke, are you?'' which was exactly what they were going to do. 
 I suspect that the power to confiscate cannabis already exists, and that the Minister will make that point. However, it is true that there has been no codification to bring matters together. The criticism made about confiscating cigarettes from someone who appears to be under 16 is valid, as it would be an infringement of their civil rights. However, the ability to confiscate alcohol, tobacco or cannabis from children in the street is a good one, as is the ability to confiscate alcohol from people who are causing a public nuisance. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Witney has made a good contribution, and I hope that the Minister will respond in the appropriate spirit. Many contributions have been made by tabling amendments and new clauses. If we had to spend our time in this Committee worrying whether our efforts would pass the immediate scrutiny of the parliamentary draftsman, we would do no work at all. That would be regrettable, so I await the Minister's response to my hon. Friend's ideas with interest.

Simon Hughes: I shall not be long.

Dominic Grieve: I do not believe that.

Simon Hughes: I will show the hon. Gentleman that it is possible to believe.
 Let me say to the hon. Member for Witney that I understand where he is coming from, but I side with colleagues on the Labour Back Benches. [Hon. Members: ''Not often.''] I judge things on their merits. I can see that the idea was well conceived, but the hon. Gentleman has not worked out whether what he wanted was deliverable through the new clause, which he said that he was thinking of doing. 
 I will list the reasons why the new clause would not work. First, the new clause states that there should be specific powers, but it does not set them out in full or give examples, so we do not know what the other powers are at all. 
 Secondly, the clause seeks to confiscate certain substances, some of which it is illegal to have, namely alcohol, cannabis and other controlled drugs in certain circumstances. However, cigarettes would certainly not fall within the proposed new clause. The thought 
 that the police would be after kids who were smoking when it may have been illegal for them or others to have purchased cigarettes but not illegal, as far as I am aware, for them to be smoking, also strikes me as going too far. 
 Thirdly, the clause would provide for a new test that the police should be able to maintain not only public order, which of course they must, but public decency as generally defined. The police have a duty in relation to public decency, but that relates to matters such as those that we discussed the other day, such as whether walking round in the nude is decent. I do not think that they have ever applied decency in this context or that they would wish to do so. 
 Fourthly, it seems that there are already significant legislative powers to deal with those matters, both in law and byelaw. To my certain knowledge, we have legislated on that issue three times in recent years. I would be very surprised if it were necessary to do that again, although we understand the concerns. 
 Fifthly, the subjects and object subject to confiscation are not circumscribed, so they could include all sorts of things and more could presumably be added to the list. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned what that list contains. My view is that it is right to consider how to deal with low-level and antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders and acceptable behaviour contacts work in certain ways, and acceptable behaviour contracts work well.

David Cameron: What does the hon. Gentleman think that a police constable should do if he or she comes across someone who is obviously 11 or 12 years old, smoking on the steps of the war memorial in Witney?

Simon Hughes: In the first instance, a police constable would probably say something, but surely the concerns at that stage should be more about health than criminality. A police constable should say something like what a copper would have said in the old days, such as ''Hang on, mate, that isn't such a good idea''. On the second occasion, a police constable might adopt a more formal approach. On the third occasion, a police constable might find out who the young person was and take him or her to their parents and so on. One must be gradualist about it.
 The hon. Member for Witney is self-defined as a relatively liberal member of his party. I obviously respect that, but it sounds like the beginning of an overly mighty response to actions that are potentially behaviourally harmful or not very acceptable. Going down that road leads to taking away crisps from the overweight and so on. There is all the difference in the world between illegally drinking alcohol or smoking illegal substances and doing things that kids regularly do, and I do not think that new clause 24 is the right approach.

Hilary Benn: We have had a very interesting debate. The hon. Member for Witney acknowledges some technical deficiencies, if I can put it like that, in the new clause, but I shall advance the principal argument, which has been alluded to by a number of hon. Members, as to why it is not necessary. I do so not because I dissent from his point about the importance of tackling antisocial behaviour—that issue concerns
 all of us and our constituencies—but because the powers that would be set up under the new clause already exist.
 I am happy to confirm what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said: the police already have the power to confiscate cannabis under section 23(2)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I hope that the officers concerned will be reassured by being reminded of those powers, which we have had for just over 30 years. Section 7(3) and (5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 already allow uniformed police officers to seize and confiscate any tobacco-related product found in the possession of anyone apparently under the age of 16 found smoking in public. Under the 1933 Act, possession of tobacco by a young person is an offence, except in very limited circumstances. I am not sure whether that helps us resolve the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) of those who appear to be under 16 years of age. However, that is not a problem that will affect Committee members.

David Cameron: Is not the fact that the power to which the hon. Member for Wellingborough so objected exists in a 1933 Act that I suspect the Minister did not know about previously, that officials had to dig around for, and that the police did not know about, an argument for codification?

Hilary Benn: I am not sure that I will plead guilty to the charge that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I am sure that the police are well aware of their powers. Those who are really interested can read the 1933 debate in Hansard to learn how our predecessors grappled with the question of those who appear to be above and below the age of 16.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend the Member for Witney has been seeking to codify the powers in one place so that constables in training, for example, can easily assimilate them. I make the point because, as a Minister at the Home Office will be aware, in many forces, large numbers of constables on the street are rookies—they are probationers in their first year and do not have a great deal of experience. They have a tremendous amount to take in, and it would not hurt those who have not had long to study the law if those powers were codified in one place.

Hilary Benn: I hear the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not think that that is a road that we should go down. If we are to use legislation as a way of reminding people about existing statutory responsibilities, there will be even more Home Office legislation, and some hon. Members have already been complaining about the amount. The issue is about the training of police officers and, I respectfully suggest, not the new clause.
 The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 already provides local authorities and the police with the powers to deal with the problem of alcohol. As hon. Members will know, the 2001 Act allows local authorities to designate certain public places in which to restrict the consumption of alcohol, particularly where it is known to cause nuisance or annoyance. Some 57 areas have been so designated since that provision came into being. It gives the police powers to confiscate open containers of alcohol in those areas. As has been pointed out, the Licensing Bill will deal with the little problem of sealed containers, where it is believed that the person, whether an adult or a young person, has consumed, or intends to consume, the alcohol in the designated area that the 2001 Act allows local authorities to identify. 
 Finally, there is the long-standing police power that relates to anyone acting in a drunk and disorderly manner, which police officers are extremely used to using, and about which they need no reminding. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Witney that the powers that he wants to introduce are already in legislation.

David Cameron: I am very grateful for the Minister's response. It would be useful for me to return to Oxford and show a copy of his speech to the police officer to remind him where he can find all the powers that he requested should be put in one place. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 4 March at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.